On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Niklas Nielsen <nik...@mesosphere.io>
wrote:
> SGTM - but it would probably be a good idea to do some preliminary testing
> of the upgrade path it would result in.
>
> Kapil, have you tried to run different mesos processes with and w/o the
> internal namespace?
>
I haven't tried it yet, but will do soon. Is there a particular set of
tests that you would like?
Kapil
>
> Niklas
>
> On 26 January 2015 at 12:47, Vinod Kone <vinodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > SGTM. I would suggest to first address the non-proto files before
> changing
> > the proto files.
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Kapil Arya <ka...@mesosphere.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > TLDR: We currently use "mesos::internal" namespace for almost
> everything
> > > inside src/. However, in most cases, it is directly enclosing another
> > > namespace. This makes the "internal" namespace redundant and we should
> > > kill it.
> > >
> > > I learned from Ben Hindman that the original motivation for introducing
> > an
> > > explicit internal namespace was to discourage people from exposing
> > internal
> > > symbols through "extern", etc. Since we don't seem to expose symbols
> > > through "extern" in our codebase, I think it's safe to kill this
> > namespace.
> > >
> > > Here is a list of files that define classes directly in the
> > mesos::internal
> > > namespace (i.e. without enclosing a separate namespace) [1]:
> > >
> > > authorizer/authorizer.hpp
> > > common/http.hpp
> > > common/attributes.hpp
> > > common/lock.hpp
> > > files/files.hpp
> > > hook/manager.hpp
> > > master/contender.hpp
> > > master/detector.hpp
> > > usage/usage.hpp
> > > watcher/whitelist_watcher.hpp
> > >
> > > messages/messages.pb.h
> > >
> > > Of the above list, things like hook/manager.hpp and
> > > master/{contender,detector}.hpp can be moved into their own namespaces.
> > I
> > > am sure, we can come up with a strategy for the rest as well.
> > >
> > > One possible concern here might be messages.proto and the effects on
> > > upgrades, etc., if we change the namespace/package for these protobufs.
> > If
> > > this turns out to be a real concern, we can possibly keep the internal
> > > namespace for messages.proto.
> > >
> > > If we kill the "internal" namespace altogether, it would make it much
> > > easier to expose some headers as public headers for modularization,
> etc..
> > > This will also help us get rid of "namespace internal" from some of the
> > > public headers that we already have.
> > >
> > > The motivation for killing the "internal" namespace comes from a
> > > patch-set[2] that tries to expose slave/containerizer/isolator.hpp as
> > > include/mesos/slave/isolator.hpp. We wanted to keep Isolator inside
> the
> > > "mesos::slave" namespace instead of putting it directly in the "mesos"
> > > namespace. This change causes a lot of conflicts due to "mesos::slave"
> > and
> > > "mesos::internal::slave" and we had to resort to using fully qualified
> > > names for a large number of definition in src/slave, src/tests, etc.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Kapil
> > >
> > > [1] List obtained by running the following command and then filtering
> out
> > > the instances where "internal" was enclosed in something other than
> > > "mesos":
> > > grep -nr "} // namespace internal" * -B1 |grep -v
> > > "namespace\|\-\-\|\.cpp"|cut -d'-' -f1
> > >
> > > [2] https://reviews.apache.org/r/30238/
> > > https://reviews.apache.org/r/29602/
> > > https://reviews.apache.org/r/29603/
> > >
> >
>
